vote:

the presiding officer: is there any senator wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 62 and the nays are 35, and the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: john joseph tuchi of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to the vote to invoke cloture on the humetewa nomination. [inaudible] the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion.

we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of diane j. humetewa of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona. signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of diane j. humetewa of arizona to be the united states district court judge of the district of arizona, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or to change their vote? seeing none, the ayes are 64, the nays are 34, the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the

nomination. the clerk: diane j. humetewa of arizona to be united states district judge for the district of arizona. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: department of commerce, roy k.j. williams of ohio to be assistant secretary of commerce for economic development. department of state, carlos roberto moreno of california to be ambassador extraordinary and plench to bleez -- plenipotentiary to belize. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the williams nomination. mr. leahy: i yield back the time. the presiding officer: without objection all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the williams nomination. all those in favor. all those opposed. the ayes have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, there

will be two minutes of debate prior to a vote on the moreno nomination. mr. leahy: i yield back the time. the presiding officer: without objection all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the moreno nomination. all in favor signify by saying aye. all those opposed. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the time until 5:15 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: with the time from 3:00 p.m. to 3:45 controlled by the republicans and 3:45 to 5:00 p.m. controlled by the majority. the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: thank you, mr. president. as my colleagues know, this is national police week and i know i express the sentiment of every member of this body to show our appreciation for the 900,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers who

literally put their life on the lines every day to keep us safe. we cannot thank them enough and we can also help them by your your owr actions. in 2013, 105 lost their lives in the line of duty. obviously this is a matter that requires the attention of the united states senate. let me just give you the most recent casualty in the state of maryland. on august 28, a baltimore county police officer, jason snyder, who was only 36 years of age, was shot and killed while serving a search warrant at the home on roberts avenue in kaytonsville at approximately 5:00 in the morning. he was part of a tactical team that entered the house in search of a juvenile subject wanted in relation to a shooting the previous week. the entry team encountered four subjects inside the house who attempted to florida florida. a subject attacked him, opened

fire striking him several times. despite being mortally wounded officer snyder returned fire and killed the subject. he is survived by his wife and two children. unfortunately that story was told 105 other times in 2013 of law enforcement officers who lost their life in the line of duty. i've introduced legislation, s. 357, which provides for a national blue alert. i think most members are familiar with the amber alert. what it means is the rapid dissemination of information to help law enforcement. blue alert is to deal with an officer who has been assaulted or attacked or killed. that information would be available nationwide. and as law enforcement will tell you, rapid dissemination of information is the most important part in law enforcement. so it's critically important that that information be made available. mr. president, this is a bipartisan bill. i originally filed the bill with

senator graham and i appreciate his help. senator leahy has been the real champion, chairman of the judiciary committee. the work that he has done on behalf of law enforcement -- and i can't thank him enough for his help on this legislation. senator mcconnell, today in his leader time, talked about, that this is national police week and mentioned that he is a cosponsor of the legislation i'm referring to and urged that this is the type of bill that we need to pass. senator blunt, who is on the floor, i thank him very much. he's been a real leader in regards to these law enforcement issues and blue alert. this bill passed with 406 votes in the house of representatives, so it is a bill that provides for smart ways to help law enforcement. it is endorsed and supported by a whole host of groups, including the fraternal order of police, the national association of police organizations, the federal law enforcement officers

association, the concerned police survivors and the sergeant ben neff latin association, the -- benovelent association. we're looking for a way to tan tangibly do something to help. this is the way to do it. mr. president, i ask as in legislative session unanimous consent the senate proceed to calendar number 194, s. 357, the national blue alert act, that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. coburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: per the senate rules i've submit add letter outlining my reasons for objecting to this besides it not being paid for. and i object. mr. leahy: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i commend the senator from maryland who just as he did when he was in the state legislature and has done every single day since he's been in the united states senate, he has been supportive of law enforcement and police officers, and i commend him for it. i'm sorry there was an objection. i spoke earlier to the senator from maryland -- i think i said delaware before. i meant maryland of course. my dear friend, senator ben cardin. i told him earlier that that i a hearing on the bulletproof vest program. the distinguished senator from delaware was there as well as officers from delaware. during that hearing, we heard from officer zallos of the

police department. this is some of the most powerful testimony i've heard in my years, almost 40 years in that committee. she was shot in the face and chest during a routine traffic stop last year. she was saved by her protective vest. she returned fire and then she pursued the suspects for 20 miles and ultimately the police in the neighboring jurisdiction apprehended the shooter. determined police officer, former marine, mother, wife. i had one of the letters -- one of the letters that i have is from her daughter mikhala talking about what her mother faced. this was powerful testimony. we also heard from a police chief.

they will be staying with law enforcement during national police week here on the west front of the capitol. and we'll talk about the national blue alert, which is so needed. we'll talk about this bill which senator ben nighthorse campbell who served in law enforcement, a republican from colorado, and i first introduced for decades it has been passed unanimously. it saves lives. it's not a luxury item. first, i'd ask consent that my full statement be placed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and i ask as if in legislative unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 162, s. 933, the bulletproof vest partnership grant program reauthorization act, the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid

upon the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. coburn: i object. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. coburn: we went through this ten days ago, and i gave a very long and detailed explanation to my objections to this bill. i won't belabor that again, but again we're at the process where we owe $17 trillion, and we're spending money that we don't have in areas that are far lower in priority than this issue. i have no objection. that i think this actually has, in terms of bulletproof vests, a great way to protect those that protect us. but again, as i stated the last time that we had this discussion, under the enumerated powers, this is the responsibility of the states and the local communities, and on that basis, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. leahy: mr. president, i'm sorry for that because it will

waste more money in two weeks in afghanistan and iraq, or maybe a week, than this would cost for years to protect americans. american law enforcement. police officers who protect us every day. we allow this matter to come to a vote and everybody vote yes or no. i tell you the senator from vermont would vote yes. i know the senator from maryland would vote "yes." i know the distinguished presiding officer from delaware would vote "yes" as every single democratic senator would, and i believe a number of republican senators would. we all give great speeches this week saying we stand with law enforcement. well, as some would say, put up or shut up. let's stand with them. let's pass this legislation. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum.

a senator: mr. president? mr. leahy: sorry. first i'd ask -- i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate, with the approval of both the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that the requests be agreed to and be printed in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i didn't see my dear friend from missouri on the floor seeking recognition, so i'll withhold my request for absence of a quorum. mr. blunt: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i want to say a few things about national police week. i'm pleased to be able to cochair with the presiding officer and the senator from delaware, senator coons, the law enforcement caucus that we founded when we came to the senate together. i'm proud to be a cosponsor of the national blue alert act that senator cardin talked about, and i'd thraoeubg see that done -- i'd like to see that done.

i think we can do things to provide more safety and security for local police officers as we have for the fire grants, all those things that followed 9/11. as i was standing here listening, i was thinking about how much we benefit every day, mr. president, from the capitol police -- we walk by them and their positions securing these buildings, stand in the way of harm, and often forget that they're there for that purpose. and that when others are able to look for a safer place to be, our police officers run to where the danger is. they stand between us and that danger. and in the time i've been here, two of our capitol police officers have been killed in the building, on duty, one just a few feet away from where my office would be in the next congress. and they were there for us. i remember on 9/11 leaving the building; every reason to believe that this building could be, and perhaps was going to be

an immediate target to our enemies that were attacking us that day, and i remember walking out of the building as the capitol police were insisting we get out of the building. and looking back over my shoulder and seeing that they were all still in the building. so whether it's the police that we see daily and the police that serve us in our communities, the families that send their loved ones into harm's way every day, this is an important time to recognize that service, but also be an important time to think about what we could do about it. that's why the national blue alert bill that doesn't mandate that states create the system. it simply provides that states could have access to a system that would create an alert system when someone has harmed a police officer, that we make a maximum and immediate effort to see that that person is apprehended, that that person eventually will be called to pay

the penalty for what they have done. we benefit for these people who, again, run to where the danger is, who stand between us and those things that create danger for us as citizens, whether you're trying to go to the local grocery store or the local shopping center or the school play, there's somebody in that community whose job it is to make that a safer place for you to be than it would otherwise be. and, mr. president, i'm pleased to have had a chance to work with you on so many of these issues. i rise with and on behalf of all of our colleagues to say thank you for those who stand up to defend and protect us here in national police week. and i yield the floor. mr. markey: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: i rise to speak on the issue of net neutrality, mr. president, because right now

there are people who are watching the floor of the senate streaming live on c-span.org. they might be engaged citizens, political junkies, or maybe they need something to help them take a nap. well, because, let's face it, the action in this most deliberative body can sometimes feel a little bit slow. now imagine just a few companies deciding that c-span.org will be put into a slow lane, that the public interest content streamed out to the world will be sent out at an even more deliberative pace while kitten videos will get priority. when people talk about net neutrality, that's what we're talking about. instead of an open and free internet where the billions of clicks and likes and links made by customers and entrepreneurs in their living rooms and garages determines who wins and loses, it will be just a few companies and a few corporate

boardrooms deciding who gets into the express lane and fall behind in a traffic jam. we need a truly open internet because an open internet has become the world's greatest platform for innovation, job creation and economic growth. an open internet enables freedom of expression and the sharing of ideas across town or across the world. an open internet is driving economic growth in massachusetts and throughout the united states. openness is the internet's heart. nondiscrimination is its soul. and any infringements on either of these features undermines the spirit and the intent of net neutrality. the vitality of this free platform is at stake today because right now our internet regulators at the f.c.c. are determining how they will use its authority to keep the internet open for business. when the f.c.c. first unveiled its new open internet proposal a few weeks ago, the commission

contemplated whether to allow paid prioritizeation. under these proposed internet rules of the road, fast lanes could open to those who can pay, leaving others stuck in traffic. the result: consumers could be stuck in an online provider pileup when a broadband provider decides to slow down a streaming of netflix "house of cards" or bringing a high-speed yahoo search to a crawl or block a free online call to a friend abroad. but the worry goes far beyond simply slowing down the videos we watch on youtube. without a truly open internet, start-ups and small businesses would suffer, slowing our economy and job growth throughout massachusetts and throughout the country. no one should have to ask permission to innovate, but with fast and slow lanes that,'s precisely what an entrepreneur will need to do. right now the essence of the

internet is innovate and test new ideas first. if an idea then takes off, the creator can attract capital and expand. the internet today is a level playing field, where the competition for the best in technology and ideas thrives. creating internet fast and slow lanes would flip this process on its head. instead an entrepreneur would first need to raise capital in order to start innovating because she would need to pay for fast-lane access to have a chance for her product to be seen and to succeed oefpblt those with access to deep pockets would develop anything new. imagine the stifling of creativity if start-ups need massive amounts of money even to innovate. so consider an app developer or creator of a new product in boston or throughout the country. how will she reach potential customers and viewers if her web

site is stuck on a gravel path while those with access to capital wiz by on the interstate as they flash their internet ez pass. she won't reach her customers. only those with money will. and if you don't believe me, consider the more than 100 tech companies, including amazon and microsoft and google and yahoo and twitter that categorize broadband providers imposing tolls on internet companies as a grave throat the internet. or consider the 50 venture capitalists who wrote to chairman wheeler last week and said with paid prioritization -- quote -- "an individual in a dorm room or a design studio will not be able to experiment outloud on the internet." the result will be greater conformity, fewer surprises, less innovation, less disrupti disruption, less creation of the next big idea. that would be the end of the internet as we know it today. unfortunately, i have seen this

fight before. in 2006, when the open internet was under attack, i introduced the first net neutrality bill in the house of representatives. today our battle to preserve an open and free internet wages on. that's why last week i joined with 10 of my senate colleagues to urge chairman wheeler to rethink and insist that he explore all options, including reclassifying broughtband as a telecommunications -- broadband as a telecommunications service. we need to put on the books the strongest open internet rules possible. and if title 2 reclassification is the most effective way to accomplish this goal, that's what the f.c.c. should do. because then it would be treated as a common carrier service. that's how we treat traditional phone service. that, in fact, is what the internet has become in the 21st century. you can't live without it. we have to treat it as such.

and to be connected in the 2 1st century, you need internet access. that's why if needed -- and it just might be -- title 2 will have to be the way to go. as one of the primary authors of the 1996 telecommunications act, a bill that unleashed competition, created hundreds of millions of dollars of private investment, i know the f.c.c. has both the pour and the responsibility to oversee the -- power and the responsibility to oversee the operation of broadband networks and intervene in its effort to preserve competition and safeguard consumers. it's time for the f.c.c. to use that power to protect the tremendous power of the intern internet. the internet is the vital tool that helps businesses compete, expand, pumping life into our economy. again, after the 1996 act, $1 trillion of private-sector investment went into developing

new companies on-line, in to expanding the internet. why? the government acted to make sure there was a level playing field in the 1996 act then got out of the way and watched the competition flourish in this chaotic new world of broadband. there was no youtube, there was no google, amazon. there was no twitter. there was no facebook. it didn't exist. it could have existed before then but not if we didn't have a nowishing internet that was wide open for competition and for investment from the private sector. that's why this decision by the federal communications commission is so important. it is understanding the very nature of this new communications job-creating revolution that we have here. we must fight to protect it. i thank you, mr. president, for allotting me this time. and i yield back the balance. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president.

mr. president, yesterday i came to the floor to address remarks made by the majority leader. just yesterday the majority leader came to the floor and he said that republicans were going quiet, he said, on health care. well, senator reid said that obamacare is no longer high on republicans' radar screen. mr. president, yesterday i said that it was certainly still very high on my radar screen and that republicans have every intention -- every intention -- of continuing to focus on the democrats' health care law and all of its harmful side effects. americans all across the country have been feeling those damaging side effects of the president's health care law and the side effects, mr. president, are getting worse. hardworking middle-class families who didn't want this health care law in the first place are facing higher premiums, they're facing smaller paychecks, they're facing fewer jobs, fewer doctors, and many other problems as a result

specifically of the president's health care law. so today i want to talk about another side effect of the law and that's the millions if not billions of taxpayer dollars that have been absolutely wasted by bureaucrats who set upstate health insurance exchanges that have failed. under the health care law, states could choose, mr. president, choose to set up their own exchange or to use the federal exchange. states got federal grants to help plan which one they would do. if a state then decided to set up its own exchange, it got even more money from washington to cover the costs. so how much money are we talking about? well, according to the congressional research service, the federal government awarded grants of over $4.7 billion as of this march. now, people all across the country know that the federal exchange was an absolute train wreck when it was launched. in one state after another, the state exchanges also have been

collapsing and costing taxpayers a fortune. now, some of those states have absolutely just given up. they've decided that they just want to scrap their own systems and go into the federal exchange after all, an option they had at first but they decided to go first to the state exchange and now those have failed. well, what they've done is they spent a lot of taxpayer money, money that washington sent to them. where is the money? the money's gone. their system doesn't work and now what they want to do is have a fresh start. well, president obama says that democrats should forcefully defend and be proud of the law. i want to see where the people are now coming to the floor to forcefully defend and be proud of this health care law. i ask the president, is he proud that these obamacare exchanges are failing all across the country? are democrats who voted for this health care law ready to

forcefully defend all the taxpayer dollars that we now know have been wasted? democrats don't want to talk about the law's expensive side effects or about the americans harmed by the law. republicans have been offering solutions. today senator hatch and i are introducing legislation that would address these state failures and protect taxpayers. after all, that's what americans want. they want accountability for their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. this bill, called the state exchange accountability act, says that if a state got federal money to set up its own exchange and later decided to give up and move back on to the federal exchange, that it would have to pay back the money. it's that simple. taxpayers shouldn't have to pay twice for the mistakes of incompetent state bureaucrats who couldn't set up a working health care exchange. now, states would have 10 years

to pay back the grants. they'd have to pay them back in full and i know state budgets are tight so they wouldn't have to come up with the whole amount all at once. they'd pay back 10% of the total each year for the next 10 years. these states that walk away from their exchanges are conceding that they wasted the money that they got, and it's only fair to the american taxpayers that these states should repay the american taxpayers. the failure of these exchanges and the money squandered on them was a side effect of the health care law. democrats told states that they could set up these exchanges and washington would pay the bill. so some states didn't really care what it cost. they didn't care if the work was being done well or done at all. as far as they were concerned, don't worry, it's somebody else's money whether it works or not. well, this bill that i'm introducing today tells state

bureaucrats like these from these states that it's time for them to care about the money they've wasted. this won't fix all the harmful side effects that democrats created with the health care law but it's a start and it is the right thing to do. if you want a sense of how big the problem is, look at an article that ran in "politico" on monday of this week. the headline is: "four states in a fix over their troubled exchanges." the article talks about four states that basically embraced obamacare. massachusetts, nevada, maryland, oregon. it says that these four state exchanges spent at least $47 $474 million and are now in shambles. look at it. maryland, $118 million. massachusetts, $57 million. nevada, $51 million. oregon, $248 million, taxpayer money from around the country,

sent to oregon for programs that are now in shambles. so now these states, some of them want more money to fix what's gone wrong in the first place. according to "politico," maryland spent $118 million to set up its own exchange and that state officials did such a bad job that they're now planning to scrap the whole thing and use software from connecticut's exchange. massachusetts, $57 million. "politico" calls that program in massachusetts fatally crippled. nevada, $51 million. "politico" says salvaging that exchange would be a huge feat. oregon, $248 million to set up its own exchange. it was such a spectacular failure that cnbc ran a headline on may 5 saying -- quote -- "f.b.i. probing oregon's

obamacare exchange." the f.b.i. probing the exchange. the state plans to use the federal exchange from now on, getting rid of their state exchange. so that's the kind of double dipping that our bill goes aft after. why should democrats in washington, d.c. be telling taxpayers across america that they have to pay for the failures of state officials in massachusetts, nevada, maryland, oregon and other states that may find themselves in the same situation? democrats have said and the president continues to say he wants everyone to have a fair -- a fair shot. are americans who have to pay higher taxes because of these failed state exchanges, are they getting a fair -- a fair shot? people from the other states will or not. our bill will give a fair shot to americans who don't want to pay twice to bail out incompetent state bureaucrats.

it will give a fair shot to americans who want to reclaim some of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. now, this is just one idea, one of many ideas that republicans have offered and will continue to offer to create a patient-centered approach to health care. the plans that we've offered would solve the biggest problems that families face which is the cost of care and access to care. problems that seemed to have been ignored and the democrats who forced this law through congress. that means things like allowing small businesses to pool together in order to buy health insurance for their employees. small businesses deserve a fair shot. it means letting people shop for health insurance that works for them and their families, not what the government says is best for them but what they say is best for them and their families. people deserve a fair shot at buying a plan that's best for them and their families. it means adequately funding state high-risk pools that help people get insurance, peep that

have disease, people that -- people that have disease, people that are sick without raising the costs for healthier people. these are just a few of the solutions republicans have offered and continue to offer. they're just a few of the things that we'll do to give americans real health care reform and really a fair shot. health care reform that gives people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs, without all of these obamacare harmful and expensive side effects. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i'd like to thank senator barrasso for his leadership on this issue. as a longtime practicing physician before he came to the senate, he's providing great leadership, expertise and is able to evaluate and comment so wisely on the important initiative of health care. thank you, senator barrasso.

today, majority leader reid, the leader of the democratic majority in the senate, and senator chuck schumer came to the senate floor to demand that the house of representatives pass their immigration bill. they labeled republicans as extremists for not giving into their demands, and they are correct about one thing, the house is not giving in. at this point in time, the house is refusing to yield to the pressure of special interest groups and political lobbyists and senate democrats to pass a bill that would be bad for america. it just will be bad for america. so i think once again the special interests will lose and the voice of the american people will be heard. senator schumer said that republicans are xenophobes because they don't pass his

plan. so let's talk about what's extreme. a new report just out reveals that this administration has released 36,000 criminal aliens from i.c.e. detention -- that's our customs enforcement officers who receive them, usually from a state or federal penitentiary, where they've been convicted of some criminal offense unrelated to immigration. usually convicted in state courts. they have been released into the general population. including this report found, 193 homicide type convictions, 1,153 sexual offenders, 303 kidnapping convictions, and 1,075 aggravated assault convictions. so these are serious crimes, and christmas -- criminals, if you chemical weapon up with the news are the only group this

administration says they are deporting. they don't deny they're not deporting others who violate our immigration laws but they promised faithfully they are faithfully removing people who commit are christmas unrelated to immigration. well, that's being proven not to be so. so these dangerous offenders should be department in custody. they shouldn't be released into the general population. we've had a stud iy -- study of that several years ago. when you take a person who entered the country illegally and they're released on bail, they don't show up. if they're willing to enter the country illegally and be here illegally, if a judge has him set for trial and he releases them on bail perks we have an incredibly high number who don't show up for rile trial. it was called catch and release, and was roundly criticized. so this is even being done now with serious criminal charges and convictions. you know, what else is extreme, extreme is trying to

pass an immigration bill that would double the flow of guest workers into our country and triple the grants of permanent admissions to america. when 50 million working age americans are out of work. we have a very serious unemployment problem. does no one -- is no one concerned about that? so it's not gleeb owe phobic but it's -- xenophobic but it's compassionate to say we should focus on struggling american workers. it's not xenophobic but our patriotic duty to defend the integrity of our borders and to enforce the long-established laws of the united states. it is the oath we all took as senators to defend the constitution of the united states. it's the oath that the chief law enforcement officer took. president obama. and we have a duty to defend our

citizens and our people at a time when they are struggling financially. there's just no doubt about it. so there was one group of people not referenced when majority leader reid and senator schumer talked earlier this morning. do you know who it was? completely omitted was the american worker. that's who's not being discussed in this debate. we know how the chamber of commerce is viewed. they would like more workers creating slack labor marks markets and lower wages. we know special interest groups want more, certain politicians think this is going to be good. but acoarnl the congressional budget office, our own professional team that is selected in a nonpartisan way that give us advice on ramifications of legislation we pass, that group has looked at the reid-schumer bill that passed the senate. according to c.b.o., senate

democratic immigration bill, supported by a number -- a small number of republicans but overwhelmingly the democratic bill, it would reduce increases in unemployment while reducing wages. it would increase unemployment, basically, while reducing wages of american workers for the next 12 years and reducing per-person wealth, per-person per capita income in america for 17 years. now,, you'll you -- you bring in 30 million people in the next ten years as this bill would do, tripling the number that would be normally given legal status in america, and it will bring down the per person wealth and it will bring down wages. surely the chamber of commerce understands the free market, do

they not? surely senator reid understands that, does he not? we were on a conference call yesterday worrying about the american steel industry, a large amount of steel was being dumped into america. what -- why? what is the impact of that? what is the concern? more steel, lower price for steel. bring in more cotton, lower price for cotton. bring in more labor, you'll have lower wages for american workers. that's what c.b.o. told you. there is no dispute that. yeah -- yet we have senators on this floor and repeatedly say this is going to increase wages. give me a break. you can't just say something and think it's going to make it reality. it's just the opposite of reality. so under current law we are admitting more than 600,000 guest workers each year. guest workers come to america not to be citizens but just to

take jobs that someone contends we don't have enough workers for. and we have a million permit -- permanent frats that live here and become citizens ultimately. that's the current law. right now it's pretty serious, but this is established what we've agreed to but under the senate bill that senator reid maneuvered through this congress, we would admit more than 1.2 million guest workers each year, doubling the number of guest workers. and give permanent residency to 30 million immigrants over the next ten years, a tripling of what the normal rate would be. so research from harvard professor dr. george borjas, maybe the most preeminent student of labor, wages, and immigration at harvard, shows

that the american workers lose more than $400 billion in wages each year due to competition from low-cost workers from abroad. $400 billion in wages each year. not million. $400 billion. dr. borjas' research also shows from 1980 to 2000, he did empirical studies using the consensus data and department of labor data and other officials data, he concluded that wages declined 7.4% for lower skilled working americans. people who go out and work every day. not people with college degrees but people who are working people in this country saw their wages decline from 1980 to 2000 by 7.4% as a result of this very large flow of legal and illegal

immigration. so there is no doubt, colleagues, you have to understand this, a vote for the reid-schumer immigration bill is a vote to lower the wages of american workers. not only that, making it harder for americans to get a job, period. so the people hurt worst by the democratic immigration policies are young americans, it appears low-income americans and minority workers. so our minority workers, according to dr. borjas' studies and others, are particularly damaged by the large flow, and this includes hispanics who come here lawfully or been legalized in america and are trying to get started on the way up and would like to have a pay raise but their wages are being pulled down also by an extraordinary,

unjustified flow of labor that we can't absorb now. we don't have jobs for them now. that's the problem. i don't dislike people who want to come here. i know most of them are good people that would like to advance themselves. but we have a responsibility as united states senators to citizens of our country, and we need to ask, is this good for america? can we absorb this number of people and maintain decent wages, or are we in a longer-term trend and we're just going to allow middle and lower-income workers see their wages erode? it's a big issue and we need to be honest about it. i hope that we will do so. so young americans are also hurt, and low-income americans. so senator schumer says we should do the bidding of the chamber of commerce, budying up with them now, and he says

there's a hijacking out here but it seems mr. schumer's party has been the one that's hijacked by special interests. and they've lost sight of who they claim to represent, working americans. that's my charge. that's what i say. we have a generous immigration policy. we need to make sure it's enforced correctly and carried out awfully. that's what the american people have asked of us. they've demanded, really, for 40 years, that we create a lawful system that we can be proud of, that treats people fairly. you make your application to come to america, you lay out your qualifications, and they're evaluated and the best persons, the persons most deserving on an objective basis are the ones that are admitted. what's wrong with that? that's what canada does.

that's what the u.k. does. it's what australia does. nothing wrong with that. that's what we should be doing. and we should decide how many people the country can absorb and what wage categories before we admit huge numbers, and certainly before we double the number that we presently bring in. so a number of people have complained and on the floor of the senate that the tech industries can't find qualified americans. you've heard that charge. i've heard that charge. i sort of accepted it for a while. but, in fact, the data is showing differently. it's rather surprising. in fact, we have twice as many stem graduates each year as there are stem jobs, science, technology, engineering and

mathematics, stem graduates. here is a recent paper by professor hal saltzman at rutgers university and he analyzes carefully as a good professor would, data from the department of education and labor, and so forth, and this is what he concludes. he said first we need to get accurate data to truly inform policy decisions. so if we're going to make a policy decision about how large an immigration flow we have, not to end it but how large it should be, shouldn't we have good data? and this is what he says -- quote -- "the first area to consider is the broad notion of a supply crisis in which the united states does not produce enough stem graduates to meet industry demand. in fact, the nation graduates more than two times as many stem

students each year as find jobs in stem fields. for the 180,000 or so annual openings, u.s. colleges and universities supply 500,000 graduates." they supply more than twice the number of graduates as we have jobs for now. so i'm a little dubious about some of these big business types claiming they can't get enough people. and what about i.t. specifically? we hear some of our silicon valley guys promoting any kind of immigration as long as they get more workers. mr. saltzman says this -- "the only clear impact of the large i.t. guest worker inflows over this decade can be seen in salary levels which have

remained at their late 1990's level and which dampens incentives for domestic students to pursue stem degrees." did you know that? that actually i.t. graduates' salaries have stuck at 1990's lefts and -- levels and it's causing students in college to wonder if this is such a great field to go into. in fact, the author says there are other fields that do better. well, if that's true, does that change senator reid's view of this legislation he jammed through the senate? he's so proud of, he is a he demanding the -- he's demanding the house pass it. if that's true, mr. salzman is correct. i would be prepared to have somebody dispute it. then he goes on to say this, and i agree with this line: "if there is --"

he is talking about all stem tbrad waits now. "if there were a talent shortage, where are the market indicators? namely, wage increases?" so, mr. donahue and your friends at the chamber of commerce, you believe in the free market. why are wages down if we have a shortage of workers? why aren't wages going up? well, another businessman said recently, there are 600,000 jobs in manufacturing that are going unfilled today. this immigration bill can go a long way toward helping us fill these positions. well, great scott ... i've seen instances where thousands of people apply for just a few jobs. doesn't he know, first of all --

does he not have any interest, first of all, that our goal as policy-makers for the united states of america, should be, wait a minute. you've got jobs at your manufacturing plant? we've got to get people ready. give us a chance to get you are people here first before you start bringing in foreign workers to take the limited number of jobs. from 2000 to 2013, the grim fact is that all net job gains went to immigrant workers. can you imagine that? that's what the numbers show. and under the democratic plan of this bill, if it were to pass the house, it will continue and accelerate. from 2000 to 2013, 8.8 million more working-age americans entered the labor force. so for that 13 years, 8.8

million more entered the working force. yet the number of people, american workers, actually fell 1.3 million. so we -- that's where the unemployment rate and the dropout rate is so high. but during that same period, 2000 to 2013, 5.3 million immigrants got jobs. so really all the jobs created during this period of time have been in effect, mathematically speaking, tang b taken by forein workers. is this healthy? isn't this one of the reasons we're having a hard time today? there are 50 million working-age americans who are not working today. wages are lower today than they were in 1999. median household income adjusted for inflation have dropped nearly $2,300 since 2009.

the percentage of americans in the working ages that are actually working is the lowest in 36 years. so mr. reid and mr. schumer, so i'm glad to talk about this issue. i'm glad to talk about immigration. but we're going to talk about what's in the interest of the american people. we're not going to talk about your politics and your ideology and your special interests. we're going to talk about p what's good for america and what's good for america is to get more of our unemployed workers, to get more wages going up rather than down. i'm not surprised you didn't talk about workers and wages in your remarks this morning when you demeaned people who disagree with you and oppose your great bill that you've drafted that will not work.

so we're not going to be scared off. we're not going to be intimidated and handing over control of our immigration laws to a small group of special interests who are meeting in your office, maybe promising support. so i just feel strongly about it. i don't feel there's anything wrong morally or public policy-wise to say that we need to have a lawful system of immigration that we can be proud of. that is what the american people have asked of us for over 30 years, and congress refuses to give. they're not listening to the people. and we can do it. i've been in law enforcement almost as long as the senate. i know this can be done, if we have a leader that wants to see it done. but if the president doesn't want to enforce the law and says he's only going to enforce it against people who commit

serious crimes, and then even those aren't deported when they're caught, then i think we've got a real deep problem here. i just think we can do better. and let's don't go down this road of pushing, pushing, pushing, just pass a bill, any bill. oh, we've got to do it fast. that's been the message all along. we've tbot to ram it through. -- we've got to ram it thriewvment buthrough.this thine sunshine for a long time. and is it doesn't smell so good when it's examined and the american people are not prepared to eat it. and they shouldn't. so, mr. president, i thank the chair and the senate for giving me a chance to express these concerns, but i believe we need to put american interests first, and when we do, we need to draft an immigration bill that's far different from the one that's being promoted today u . i would yield the floor and note

the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. flake: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: i rise today to speak on the unfortunate allegations of mismanagement and negligent that have been leveled against phoenix v.a. health care system. by now, we have all seen the headlines highlighting unsettling allegations that veterans may be dying while awaiting care in phoenix. these revelations come to light after whistle-blowers in arizona have suggested that the phoenix v.a. officials were manipulating appointment requests and waiting lists. recent reports suggest that some veterans may have been placed on an unofficial waiting list

outside of v.a.'s official electronic waiting list, which exists to calculate how long a veteran has to wait for care. recent reports -- i'm sorry. the alleged reason for the existence of these secret for unofficial lists was to keep officially reported wait times down and to disguise longer actual waiting times. this apparently would help the phoenix v.a. save face and reflect more positively on the v.a. system as a whole. as a result, as many as 1,400 veterans' actual wait times may have been significantly longer than was reported by phoenix v.a. officials. now the v.a.'s inspector general's office has launched an investigation and senior officials with the phoenix v.a. have been placed on administrative leave. at a recent hearing in the senate veterans' affairs committee after cautioning that there should be no rush to judgment, a senior v.a. official

indicated after a preliminary review that they found no evidence of a secret list. now, nothing would make me happier than to believe that the allegations that were leveled were just as a result of sour grapes or some unhappy current or former employees, but sadly, similar allegations surrounding delayed care have also serviced elsewhere in the country. just this week, cnn has reported that two v.a. officials in north carolina have been placed on administrative leave because of -- quote -- inappropriate scheduling, unquote. cnn also reports that a scheduler at the v.a. facility in san antonio suggested that there had been some cooking of the books there to hide lengthy waiting times. will it be any surprise if more v.a. health care facilities share these issues? now, we have all heard about the backlog of more than 300,000 claims made by veterans to the

department of veterans' affairs. this backlog has resulted in wait time -- in a wait time for compensation for disability claims that reportedly averages a dismal five months. the wars in iraq and afghanistan have resulted in greater numbers of veterans seeking treatment in v.a. facilities as more and more service members leave the armed forces, these members are sure to increase. clearly, the v.a. is having a hard time providing adequate and timely care to veterans. this is and should be a nationwide concern. while backlogs are one thing, efforts to obscure or hide them is something else entirely, and a disturbing pattern of allegations to that end are coming into focus. what is alleged to have gone on just in the phoenix v.a. system demands an honest, independent and timely investigation.

if these allegations are confirmed, anyone behind an effort to cover up these wait times and interfere with the truth coming out need to be held accountable. heads should roll. veterans and families impacted by any sort of negligent and mismanagement in the phoenix v.a. system deserve nothing else. in addition, an apparent pattern of similar problems around the country would suggest the congress needs to ensure that its own role in substantive, rigorous and effective oversight hasn't been blatantly ignored. v.a. secretary eric shinseki will be testifying before the committee on veterans' affairs later this week to answer questions about the state of veterans' health care. given what appears to be -- given what appears to be pervasive failures at a growing number of v.a. health care facilities, he will have more than a few questions to answer. and i look forward to the

results from that hearing. mr. president, this situation cannot go on. in phoenix and around arizona, people are concerned. we are receiving a record number of calls to our office from veterans who are concerned who want to tell their story of the care they are receiving or not receiving on a timely basis. this is something we cannot countenance in our oversight responsibilities here in congress. mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hatch: mr. president, today the senate will be in consideration of the -- consideration of the expiring provisions improvement reform and efficiency act, otherwise known as the expire act. this legislation has so far moved forward in a cooperative bipartisan fashion, and i am hoping that that spirit will continue here on the floor. it seems that the new norm for tax policy around here is conducting this ritual where tax provisions inspire. we wait until the following year to decide which ones to extend and then we finally enact them into law for one retroactive year and one prospective year.

when that happens, half of the benefit is more of a windfall rather than an incentive, and needless to say this process causes great uncertainty when businesses and individuals try to manage their taxes and budgets. i'm not casting blame on anyone for this flawed methodology. indeed, both parties share responsibility for how the tax extenders process has devolved over the years. i think the american people deserve better. i share the view of many on both sides of the aisle, including both chairmen of the tax writing committees that comprehensive tax reform will be necessary to ensure long-term growth and prosperity in our economy. when it comes to tax policy, that type of reform should be our ultimate goal. hopefully if we can reform our nation's tax code, this process of extending certain provisions over and over again will come to an end. however, i'm not naive.

fundamentally, tax form -- or should i say fundamental tax reform is unlikely to take place in the immediate future. that being the case, congress needs to work to address the tax relief provisions that expired last year or will expire by the end of this year, and we need to do so in a timely fashion. the expire act should serve as starting point for temporarily resolving the expired and expiring tax provisions. the senate finance committee voted to report the expire act on april 3, 2014. it passed through the committee by a voice vote. not every member supported the final bill, but the committee process was from the outset constructive and inclusive and allowed for the full participation of both democrats and republicans, and i give the distinguished chairman a lot of credit for that. i have to recommend -- i have to commend chairman wyden who conducted a fair and open debate

on tax extenders during the financial committee markup. his approach was a prime example of how the finance committee is supposed to operate, and in my view, it should serve as a model for all of the senate committees and how they should consider legislation in their various jurisdictions. the process reminds me of a historical analogy with respect to the chairman's home state of oregon. everyone knows about the oregon trail. thousands of pioneers started in independence, missouri, and traveled by -- to independence, oregon. they used covered wagons. in fact, the covered wagon is part of the oregon state seal. the pioneers followed the ruts the previous wagons had cut. like those pioneers, the chairman has taken this tax extenders wagon, following the bipartisan inclusive ruts of the legislative trails charted by

previous chairmen of the fans committee. hope we can stay on this trail now that the bill is on the floor. in the end, of the 55 or so tax extenders considered by the finance committee, only two were not extended. personally, i would have preferred seeing a smaller amount extended, reducing the number of tax extenders. but p in the evented, the final product represented the consensus views of the committee and i have been very pleased to work with senator wyden -- with chairman wyden in the process sm.as i said during the markup n the expire act, as the committee has considered this extenders package, chairman wyden and i have worn two hats. we have represented the interests of our respective states and we have also been brokers of the diverse interests of all the members of the committee. that has meant compromise.

and compromise has meant some outcomes that were likely not optimal from at least one of our perspectives. with a bill coming to the floor, we are wearing a third hat representing the interests of our respective caucuses. needless to say, this can be difficult. but it's what we have to do. when you dive into the list of these expired tax provisions, you can easily see that this package touches upon many facets of our economy, from housing to energy and from start-ups to larger corporations that are important to so many industries and really important in each and every state. i was glad to see the research and development tax credit, which is so important to businesses in my home state of utah, included in the bill that was reported out of the finance commit. committee. and i know there are other provisions included in this package that are important to other states.

my hope is that the floor debate on this extenders package will resemble the debate we had in the finance committee. that means a fair and transparent process and an opportunity for senators to offer amendments. the senate is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. sadly, it is difficult to call it that these days unless you're being sarcastic -- and i've been pretty sarcastic about it. a number of my colleagues, of course led by my distinguished minority leader, have come to the floor to recent months to talk about the degradation of senate rules and procedure that really has taken place under the current majority, and they've done so with good reason. on bill after bill, the process is the same. the majority leader brings a bill to the floor, immediately files cloture, even though there's no desire to filibuster on our side, accuses the republicans of filibustering, fills the amendment tree, and

blocks consideration of any and all amendments. now, there is a time to fill the procedural tree, but that's only after full and fair debate and what it's carried on too long, when the leader finally decides we've got to bring this to a close. but all too often, every time we turn around, the leader has brought the bill to the floor, filed cloture like we're filibustering when we're not, then fills up the parliamentary tree so we can't have amendments. of course, those steps are usually preceded bay short-circuited committee process, wherein committee consideration of the bill is either significantly abbreviated or passed entirely. now, this is not how the senate is supposed to operate. and when this bill we have a dhoons do things differently. as i've mentioned, the expire act has already had full and fair consideration in the finance committee. the bill was drafted in

consultation with all the members of the committee. i was one who helped make sure that that happened. and when we held a markup, all senators were allowed to offer amendments and receive votes on those amendments. why not continue that process, as we have in the past on the almighty floor of the united states senate? it's ridiculous the way the minority is being treated and i think one the majority senators are being mistreated with the way this outfit is being run right now. and while i'm satisfied with a the way the finance committee handled the sax extenders package, the -- the tax stentedders package, the vast majority of senators do not serve on the committee. most senators have not had the chance to fully debate these provisions or even offer amendments of their right, which they have the right to do. they zev that opportunity, and i'd expect that a number of my colleagues, particularly on the republican side, have amendments that would improve this bill by

helping to grow our economy and to create jobs. i have a number of amendments i'd like to offer myself and over the next few days i'll be here on the floor to automatic about some of them. so, mr. president, let's have a floor u.a.e. debate that's worthy of the senate. this is not some itty-bitty bill. that is very important bill. it the can set the trengd trendx reform that should come into the future. let's allow members of both parties to offer amendments and have votes on those amendments. and let's show the american people that senators know how to work together to solve problems for american businesses and for our citizens. too often the senate devolves into yet another partisa partisn sideshow where politics are placed above progress. like i said, it doesn't have to be this way. once again, i am pleased that i've had this opportunity to work with my colleague, chairman wyden, to move the expire act

forward. he has done a very good job and deserves a lot of good credit for it and he doesn't deserve having that work stymied because people don't have a chance to offer amendments on the the floor of the united states senate. my only hope is that now that the bill is on the floor, the democratic senate -- democratic leadership will follow his example and allow for a full and fair debate of this legislation. to be honest with you, i don't know what they're afraid of. yes, there might be some amendments that are tough to vote on, but that's part of the process. it's part of what makes the senate, when it functions right, the great body that it really can be. i understand the majority leader wanting to preserve his side in the upcoming elections. i think our minority leader wants to preserve his side and maybe add to it in the elections. i understand that these are

important considerations. but the rights of senators on both sides ought to be considered here and ought to be given not just consideration but given the respect that the senate should give to each and every member of the senate. i have to say, i am a very disappointed in what's going on around here. i'm not the only one. virtually ive is. and i know that some are disappointed on the democratic side as well. one of the problems senior senator that a high percentage of the democrat side, they've never been in the minority. they don't know what it's like to have to fight for everything you can possibly get. they're going to be there someday, whether it is this election or some election in the future. and they're going to realize for the first time that you don't break the rules to amend the rules. those rules are important.

and, frankly, they're going to realize that this should continue to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. unfortunately, right now it is not. and i.t. no it's not because ofe leadership that we have in this body. we've got to make those changes. and this is a bill to start on because this is a bill that i think everybody is interested in. it is a very important bill. it's a bill that has been labored over on the finance committee for quite at long time. it's taken years to get to this point. and certainly it was a markup that made a lot of sense. do i support everything in this bill? no. there are some things i don't think should be in there. on the other hand, there were sincere colleagues that felt they should be in there, and

they were able to prevail, and i respect that. we ought to respect both sides. unfortunately, i think our side is being disrespected, the way the senate is being handled today. it's time to stop it. this is a about i will to stop it on -- this is a bill to stop it on. this is the type of a bill that both sides have to take great interest in. this is a bill where we can set the tone for tax reform in the future. and i think it's time to waning -- to wake up around here and start letting the senate operate like the senate should operate -- as the greatest deliberative body in the world. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, first of all, i want to thank my clerkcolleague, senator warren,o is joining me here on the floor today. we are talking about an issue that couldn't be more critical. that is, what can we do to break

down the barriers that women still face in our workforce and make sure that women and their families have the fair shot that they deserve? this is a question i know that senator warren cares very deeply about. she's brought an enormous amount of leadership and focus to this debate, and i'm real will you appreciative that she is here to speak. so i will yield her time first. then i will finish speaking when she is done. thank you for being here today. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president, i'm pleased to join senator murray on the floor today to stand up for america's women, because it's time for a tough conversation about the economics of being a woman. i applaud her leadership and i am very pleased she's bringing the women of the senate to the floor today. women are working hard, earning their own way, and supporting their families, but they aren't getting the same pay, the same security, or the same respect. take a look at the minimum wage. two out of every three minimum-wage workers is a woman. women make up about

three-quarters of all tipped minimum-wage workers. a woman who works the minimum wage can work full-time and yet she won't earn enough to keep herself and a baby out of poverty. minimum-wage workers have not received a wage increase in seven years. this is bad for women, and it doesn't reflect america's values. c.e.o.'s got raises. managers got raises. but the women who cook and clean and care for our children are still stuck at the same $7.25 an hour they earned seven years ago. now, we could change this, if congress would pass a bill to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, more than 15 million women and their families would have more economic security. but republicans have blocked this bill.

they say they care about women, but they won't help the women who earn minimum wage. or consider equal pay for equal work. i can't believe i'm saying this in 2014, but women still earn, on average, only 77 cents to the dollar that their male colleagues en. bloomberg analyzed the census data to find that 99 poi.6% of , women get paid less than men. that's not an accident. that discrimination. and today, if a woman wonders if she is being paid the same as the guys are getting, she can in some jobs get fired just for asking. this is bad for women, and it doesn't reflect america's values. now, we could change this by passing senator barbara mikulski's paycheck fairness act, a law that would make sure

women don't get fired just for asking what the guy down the hall get paid. but republicans have blocked this bill. they say they care about women but won't help the women who do the same work as a man but get paid less. and consider health care. before the affordable care act was passed in 2009, some insurance companies charged women higher premiums simply because they were women. some insurance policies refuse to cover preventive services for women like mammograms and cervical cancer screenings. pregnancy costs could be excluded and birth control coverage could be left out. in other words, affordable women's health took a back seat to the profits of insurance companies. but now we have the affordable care act. we have the affordable care act, and women pay the same insurance rates as men. we have the affordable care act, and women get free coverage for mammograms and birth control. we have the affordable care act,

and women can worry a little less about whether health problems will land them in bankruptcy. and where are the republicans? well, they want to repeal obamacare. the house has now voted more than 50 times to repeal obamacare, and the senate republicans have come to the floor day after day to demand that obamacare be done away with. the republicans say they care about women, but they woangts help women -- but they won't help women pay for health care or get the full medical coverage they need at a price they can afford. women working hard earning their own way and supporting their families, and they're entitled to the same pay, the same security, and the same respect as men. policies like these -- minimum wage, equal pay, and the affordable care act -- provide a measure of equality, better security, and some basic respect. republicans want to block or

repeal all three. women aren't asking for special deals. they just want a fair shot at building lives for themselves and their families. and the women of the senate, the democratic women of the senate, are ready to fight the republicans to make sure that women across this country have their fair shot. i want to thank senator murray for her leadership in fighting for real economic equality for women. i yield, mr. president. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i want to thank the senator from massachusetts again for all of her extremely hard work, important work to expand economic opportunity and security for women and their families. she is an extremely important voice in this debate, and i am delighted that she is here today to join us. mr. president, yesterday i held a hearing on this topic in the senate budget committee.